You’re missing the entire point of the free software movement. Free as in freedom does NOT intrinsically mean free as in absence of cost. Linux exists because of companies like Cygnus who successfully marketed the Bazaar, as opposed to the Cathedral, to investors.
Stallman and Torvalds themselves have gone on record multiple times stating the utter lack of political motivation in being able to modify the software on your machine.
Yes, open source software often requires funding and corporate support because we live in a primarily capitalist society. That doesn’t make it capitalist itself.
And I think the freedom foss offers is socialist - it necessitates cooperation, it’s open for all to see and contribute to, and the idea of ownership is very loose. It doesn’t matter what the political motivation is.
open source software often requires funding and corporate support
Specifically no. The Cygnus example shows how the Bazaar was proven to be valuable in the context of capitalism. The Bazaar can also be valuable in the context of socialism. The fact is that the motivations of organizing the Bazaar have nothing to do with the intrinsic value of that approach to development.
I think the freedom foss offers is socialist
The freedom of the free software movement is independent of political and economic motivations. Do not confuse the societal benefit of freedom with the political and economic model of socialism.
the idea of ownership is very loose
Again, I disagree. Under the spirit of the GNU Public License there is no ownership. The entire idea of copyleft is that it is the antithesis of copyright.
It doesn’t matter what the political motivation is.
You’re missing the entire point of the free software movement. Free as in freedom does NOT intrinsically mean free as in absence of cost. Linux exists because of companies like Cygnus who successfully marketed the Bazaar, as opposed to the Cathedral, to investors.
Stallman and Torvalds themselves have gone on record multiple times stating the utter lack of political motivation in being able to modify the software on your machine.
Yes, open source software often requires funding and corporate support because we live in a primarily capitalist society. That doesn’t make it capitalist itself.
And I think the freedom foss offers is socialist - it necessitates cooperation, it’s open for all to see and contribute to, and the idea of ownership is very loose. It doesn’t matter what the political motivation is.
Specifically no. The Cygnus example shows how the Bazaar was proven to be valuable in the context of capitalism. The Bazaar can also be valuable in the context of socialism. The fact is that the motivations of organizing the Bazaar have nothing to do with the intrinsic value of that approach to development.
The freedom of the free software movement is independent of political and economic motivations. Do not confuse the societal benefit of freedom with the political and economic model of socialism.
Again, I disagree. Under the spirit of the GNU Public License there is no ownership. The entire idea of copyleft is that it is the antithesis of copyright.
Hey look, we agree on something :)